Perhaps the most significant shift would be in the very definition of science - instead of "seeking natural explanations for what we observe around us," the new standards would describe it as a "continuing investigation that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena."

So, my question is, what is wrong with this definition of science:

The "investigation that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena."

It seems to me that "seeking natural explanations for what we observe around us," presumes a conclusion (which seems very unscientific).

Incidentally, this is probably one of the more balanced and well-written articles I have read on this news item.

Originally posted by hardeeharharuh. how is the current definition assuming anything?

That's quite obvious. It assume that there is a natural explanation for everything observable.

Quote:

Originally posted by hardeeharharthe new one needs to be associated with a definition of adequate -- which as we all know, can lead to passive acceptance of all things, lets say, genesis because of their adequacy...

Bullshit...

perhaps "complete" could be substituted for "adequate" is in:

The "investigation that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building to lead to more complete explanations of natural phenomena."

Originally posted by groveratWhy would science assume that there are not?

Well, if "science" is about following the "scientific method", then it shouldn't assume anything like that. Remember it begins with an observation...follows with a hypothesis...then a prediction...then an experiment. Science as a process should not assume the only way something can be explained. Science as an ideology, of course, does.

For example...let's take something like a double-blind study of the affect prayer has on physical healing. There can be observation, hypothesis, prediction and experimentation. In the end, a conclusion that "Prayer appears to have some positive non-normative effect on the physical well-being of the 'prayees', though we cannot determine a naturalistic explanation for it." is a perfectly scientific process and conclusion.

So in other words: The scientific method assumes nothing. The quibble is over how the word scienece is defined in writing, as opposed to how it is executed in practice.

Human beings have way too much free time on their hands.

This also, of course, leads you to have to reexamine what exactly natural means, so let's go ahead and review that word and make the necessary changes to shoehorn it into a mindset we want promoted too.

Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.- Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...

Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.- Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...

Originally posted by rageousSo in other words: The scientific method assumes nothing. The quibble is over how the word scienece is defined in writing, as opposed to how it is executed in practice.

This is more than merely semantic quibbling as you suggest. It is a legitimate debate over what "scientific" really means and to whom and what implications that has for what we are willing to call "real" knowledge and what is not.

Originally posted by Chris CuillaWell, if "science" is about following the "scientific method", then it shouldn't assume anything like that. Remember it begins with an observation...follows with a hypothesis...then a prediction...then an experiment. Science as a process should not assume the only way something can be explained. Science as an ideology, of course, does.

For example...let's take something like a double-blind study of the affect prayer has on physical healing. There can be observation, hypothesis, prediction and experimentation. In the end, a conclusion that "Prayer appears to have some positive non-normative effect on the physical well-being of the 'prayees', though we cannot determine a naturalistic explanation for it." is a perfectly scientific process and conclusion.

No. If such a study can show that a repeatable result is obtained by a mechanism that cannot be determined, science does not conclude that "we cannot determine a naturalistic explanation for it".

Science concludes that there is a unknown, natural mechanism at work, or that we are not seeing how a know natural mechanism is involved.

Or are you suggesting that science should have chalked up such previously unknown systems of effect at a distance as bacteria, electromagnetic radiation or quantum entanglement to "unnatural" causes?

By the way, you'll notice that when confronted with information that seems to contract what is currently known, science need not fold up its tent and slink away, nor angrily deny that a new thing is happening, or just pretend that the new thing is really an old thing (although at certain places and times scientists have done all those things.

Science, as in an organized system of inquiry, gets to roll up its sleeves and start trying to figure out what is going on. Science actually likes to do that, and it makes scientists happy.

They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.

They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.

Originally posted by Chris CuillaFor example...let's take something like a double-blind study of the affect prayer has on physical healing. There can be observation, hypothesis, prediction and experimentation. In the end, a conclusion that "Prayer appears to have some positive non-normative effect on the physical well-being of the 'prayees', though we cannot determine a naturalistic explanation for it." is a perfectly scientific process and conclusion.

Well I believe science would conclude not that no naturalistic explanation exists and instead would surmise that no physical explanation exists. It doesn't assume prayer is not natural, in fact prayer and other meditation like states are quite natural to human beings, but not in the tangible sense.

Again, it's nothing more than a goofy word game.

Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.- Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...

Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.- Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...

Everything is natural - must be. What appears to be super-natural is either fantasy, lies or natural phenomena utilising laws we are so far unfamiliar with.

God (yes, I'm afraid this is where this thread has been headed at warp speed since it was a twinkle in its creator's eye) would fall in one of these categories too: non-existent or existant and the product of natural laws we are unable to comprehend.

There are NO things that are not 'natural' - that is the word for things that exist. The premise of this thread is therefore irretriviably flawed and the initial point about 'looking for natural causes' is unimpeachably correct.

Either there is no cause or there is and it is natural. Ironically, this is one of the few things in this area that really are black and white and Chris (who you could usualy bet the house on to take such a position) here opposes it and goes all relativist.

Funny old world.

What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad

What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad

Originally posted by Chris CuillaThis is more than merely semantic quibbling as you suggest. It is a legitimate debate over what "scientific" really means and to whom and what implications that has for what we are willing to call "real" knowledge and what is not.

And changing the definition of the word will have no effect on the way it is practiced in reality, thus changing its definition will only serve to pacify those who insist that science presuppose that something supernatural might also be in play.

Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.- Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...

Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.- Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...

So in other words: The scientific method assumes nothing. The quibble is over how the word scienece is defined in writing, as opposed to how it is executed in practice.

Human beings have way too much free time on their hands.

But of course if it were really about some definition of science then they wouldn't bother haggling and wasting their time. In truth we all know these semantically games are just a proxy for one group trying to reframe hte argument to cast doubt on well accepted theories like the big bang and evolution and corrolated theorems because it doesn't jive with their supreme truth as read literally.

We could pretend that it was just about science not being able to explain everything or that some things cannot be proven or proven at this point in time. For practical purposes though we know that the agenda certain groups are ultimately arguing for is not one where we teach that maybe we can't know or don't know by science and just leave it at that. But rather that we cannot prove this or that so maybe there are other explainations and oh wait, we'll point out another one, not all of the other ones but just the one that happens to believed by many Christians.

Originally posted by addaboxScience concludes that there is a unknown, natural mechanism at work, or that we are not seeing how a know natural mechanism is involved.

This is the point. Why must the word natural be there? The assumption is that there must be a naturalistic explanation for everything. The scientific method doesn't require this.

Quote:

Originally posted by addaboxOr are you suggesting that science should have chalked up such previously unknown systems of effect at a distance as bacteria, electromagnetic radiation or quantum entanglement to "unnatural" causes?

Originally posted by Chris CuillaSo, my question is, what is wrong with this definition of science:

The "investigation that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena."

It seems to me that "seeking natural explanations for what we observe around us," presumes a conclusion (which seems very unscientific).

I'm fine with it. But then again there are many different definitions of science. In general, I think that it is simply a rational framework for physical phenomena, where rational implies the observations, modeling, testing, etc., are coherent and reinforcing.

Wikipedia has multiple definitions.

Britannica says "any system of knowledge that is concerned with the physical world and its phenomena and that entails unbiased observations and systematic experimentation. In general, a science involves a pursuit of knowledge covering general truths or the operations of fundamental laws".

Dict.org has a bunch.

Quote:

Incidentally, this is probably one of the more balanced and well-written articles I have read on this news item.

If you think so. I think it is rather devoid of actual information similar to most media articles.

It's all rather depressing that such Creationists continually get such coverage. These people are being willfully stupid.

Originally posted by rageousWell I believe science would conclude not that no naturalistic explanation exists and instead would surmise that no physical explanation exists. It doesn't assume prayer is not natural, in fact prayer and other meditation like states are quite natural to human beings, but not in the tangible sense.

It is not the prayer. I was not explicit enough in the example (though I thought my mention of "prayees" clearly implied separate "prayers"). I am talking about one person praying for another having an actual physical effect on their well-being.

Quote:

Originally posted by rageousAgain, it's nothing more than a goofy word game.

Originally posted by rageousAnd changing the definition of the word will have no effect on the way it is practiced in reality, thus changing its definition will only serve to pacify those who insist that science presuppose that something supernatural might also be in play.

Wrong...and I don't propose that science "presuppose that something supernatural might also be in play" but rather that they do not presuppose one thing or the other.

Originally posted by THTIf you think so. I think it is rather devoid of actual information similar to most media articles.

Well I did say "more"...as in relative to some of the other articles I have read. Secondly...what more information do you require?

Quote:

Originally posted by THTIt's all rather depressing that such Creationists continually get such coverage. These people are being willfully stupid.

It's all rather depressing that scientists cannot be challenged without everyone reverting to stereotypes about creation thought and Christianity, and using these as an excuse to willfully avoid real debate.

Originally posted by rageousAnd since science does not, in fact, presuppose one or the other, it is nothing more that a pissing contest over the definition of the word natural, not the word science.

But in fact it does (presuppose only a natural explanation for everything). We see it throughout this thread by those self-proclaimed open-minded, intellectual (vs. willfully stupid Christians), scientific thinkers.

Originally posted by Chris CuillaBut in fact it does (presuppose only a natural explanation for everything). We see it throughout this thread by those self-proclaimed open-minded, intellectual (vs. willfully stupid Christians), scientific thinkers.

Incorrect. Just because science has shown a natural explanantion for many things the religious communtiy would rather it not have, does not mean that science as a practice sets out with said preconceived notions.

Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.- Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...

Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.- Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...

Originally posted by rageousdoes not mean that science as a practice sets out with said preconceived notions.

Oh?

Quote:

According to Miller, the Brown University biologist, academia is opposed to explanations that rely on God as a causal agent because they go against the very definition of science: seeking a natural explanation for natural events and phenomenon.

Originally posted by Chris CuillaBut in fact it does (presuppose only a natural explanation for everything). We see it throughout this thread by those self-proclaimed open-minded, intellectual (vs. willfully stupid Christians), scientific thinkers.

If by "supernatural" you mean "inexplicable", then yes, science must, perforce, assume that things are not supernatural.

Science is a system of explication.

But science has no reason to just start assuming things are inexplicable. By the very mechanisms that define it, science is obliged to attempt to explicate the inexplicable. You brushed off my previous question, but again:

If you would have science confront the mysterious by declaring it supernatural, then whither all the previously mysterious processes that have yielded to scientific investigation? Not much of a science if, at the first whiff of the unknown, it simply stands back and says: "here be dragons".

So, if you would require science to acknowledge the supernatural as part of the workings of the universe, how to you suggest it establish the difference between the truly supernatural and the merely unknown?

Why shouldn't we still be ascribing certain mental illnesses to possession by devils, since that was the religious consensus of its day, until science stuck its nose in? For that matter, why not chalk up natural catastrophes to God's anger, and leave it at that.

Because the recent history of human knowledge is a history of things formally ascribed to the supernatural gradually made explicable via science.

So are you arguing that that process is at an end, and that anything not already explained should henceforth regarded as "the doings of God"?

Because if so, they've got a bunk waiting for you in the fifteenth century.

They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.

They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.

Originally posted by addaboxIf by "supernatural" you mean "inexplicable"

I don't.

Quote:

Originally posted by addaboxBut science has no reason to just start assuming things are inexplicable. By the very mechanisms that define it, science is obliged to attempt to explicate the inexplicable.

I am fine with that.

Quote:

Originally posted by addaboxYou brushed off my previous question

This one?

Quote:

Or are you suggesting that science should have chalked up such previously unknown systems of effect at a distance as bacteria, electromagnetic radiation or quantum entanglement to "unnatural" causes?

Because I said: "Not at all."

Quote:

Originally posted by addaboxIf you would have science confront the mysterious by declaring it supernatural

I haven't said that. But some thing may remain unexplained. The prayer study example for instance. The conclusion is that there is some effect...but teh cause is unknown or not understood...and may remain that way forever. Further scientific investigation is welcomed, warranted, desired, whatever. But at the time science would not be able to say conclusively one way or another what caused the effect.

Quote:

Originally posted by addaboxSo, if you would require science to acknowledge the supernatural as part of the workings of the universe, how to you suggest it establish the difference between the truly supernatural and the merely unknown?

This is a continually process of discovery. As things are discovered and explained (e.g., bacteria, atomic particles, etc.) we can probably safely assume these are part of the "natural" world.

Quote:

Originally posted by addaboxSo are you arguing that that process is at an end, and that anything not already explained should henceforth regarded as "the doings of God"?

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
snip
I haven't said that. But some thing may remain unexplained. The prayer study example for instance. The conclusion is that there is some effect...but teh cause is unknown or not understood...and may remain that way forever. Further scientific investigation is welcomed, warranted, desired, whatever. But at the time science would not be able to say conclusively one way or another what caused the effect.

This is a continually process of discovery. As things are discovered and explained (e.g., bacteria, atomic particles, etc.) we can probably safely assume these are part of the "natural" world.

Okey doke, this is the heart of the matter.

It may well be that there are any number of things about which ongoing scientific investigation will not lead to satisfying explanations in the near future.

Where we part company is in how we would then describe these areas of unknowing.

I, and science, would say that we simply don't know enough yet to understand what is happening. We have good reason to think this way, since our experience is full of mysterious things about which we at one time did not know enough about to understand what was happening and which we now do know enough about to understand what is happening.

So, again, if it can be shown that prayer has a repeatable, quantifiable effect on the world, science would be forced to conclude that there is some mechanism at work not currently understood for which it would seek an explanation.

But there is nothing in the history of knowledge to suggest that it would be wise or efficacious for science, while seeking such an explanation, to declare: "until we have a better grasp on this phenomena we are obliged to consider it supernatural ".

As far as I can tell, your only reason for championing this particular scenario is because you regard prayer as having a special claim to mysteriousness, and that if prayer can be proven effective then science must surely allow for its supernatural status even, as you would have it, they pursue natural explanations.

Which is not how science works, and, at any rate, is not a coherent argument.

They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.

They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.

Originally posted by Chris CuillaWell I did say "more"...as in relative to some of the other articles I have read. Secondly...what more information do you require?

More thorough description of proceedings. Links to transcripts. Video if they have them.

Quote:

It's all rather depressing that scientists cannot be challenged without everyone reverting to stereotypes about creation thought and Christianity, and using these as an excuse to willfully avoid real debate.

Science is an excercise in debate every single minute, every single hour and every single day. Evolution is criticised and upended every day. Many evolutionary hypotheses have been proven to be wrong. Many evolutionary hypotheses have proven to be right. This is as it should be and as it really happens.

You are free challenge any scientific principle you want. If you have the data and experimentation to support your work, you will gain ground and it would be impossible to ignore. It will be debated.

On the other hand, creationism, is a centuries old framework of thought that has been proven to be incoherent in explaining how physical phenomena work. Not one single creationist hypotheses has survived critical debate. To bring it back now without supporting evidence is stupid, willfully stupid. Everytime it has been brought back into fray, it is without data and without experimentation, so it goes nowhere again.

This has been going on for the better part of a century now. It has been played through every facet of our culture, from neighbors, to laboratories, to government houses to the Supreme Court, multiple times. Each and everytime, it really was not about science, it was about religion.

If you believe in Creationism, you are being willfully stupid. You weren't put on this Earth by your God to be willfully stupid. These Creationists - the ID people and the Kansas BOE - are nothing but a bunch of people who are too weak in their faith, and must surround themselves with these beliefs to continually reinforce their faith. They cannot look past their interpretation of the Bible. Either that, or they are charlatans preying on you to get some money.